Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Araton: No Apologies

Yesterday’s post looked at the peculiar analysis of Times coverage from public editor Byron Calame. In his Sunday column, Calame wrote, “As public editor, I have sought to avoid evaluating opinion articles because I haven’t found a universally acceptable yardstick for measuring what is good opinion and what is bad. So my review excluded Times columnists—including the sports commentators critical of Duke—who may have held forth on the case.”

This policy—to which he had not adhered in his April 2006 case analysis, which defended the work of Selena Roberts—allowed Calame to avoid comment on Times sports columnist Harvey Araton, who penned one of the most disturbing op-eds of the entire case. After hearing that members of the women’s lacrosse team would wear armbands at the Final Four expressing sympathy with the three men’s players targeted by Mike Nifong, Araton chastised the “lacrosse gals” for showing how “cross-team friendship and university pride [could] negate common sense at a college as difficult to gain admission to as Duke.” They were, he scoffed, “staking their own reputations” on the case’s outcome.

Indeed they were. And the actions of the women’s lacrosse players (or “gals,” as the politically correct Times apparently prefers to label them) were vindicated.

Araton says that he is “absolutely not” sorry for the positions he took in that column. “I am,” he e-mailed me, “a commentator and I do not expect people to agree with what I say, or think.”

He cited the “elegantly” penned recent column of “Duke’s own” John Feinstein to suggest the appropriateness of criticizing the character of the players. Of course, this is the same John Feinstein who remarked last spring that Duke should immediately revoke the scholarship of every member of the lacrosse team—an over-the-top reaction exceeded only by Group of 88 stalwart Houston Baker’s demand that the entire team be immediately expelled from the school.

“The excesses of the Duke lacrosse team,” Araton told a DIW reader, “were fair game to shine a light on and condemn,” and “only those who expected the commentators to declare their innocence (or guilt, depending on what side they were on) the way it is done on cable television, failed to distinguish between the two stories, the alleged crime and the culture.”

As Araton presumably knows, his Times sports colleague Selena (“lily-white”) Roberts was one of these figures. In her March 31, 2006 column, Roberts contended that an inextricable link existed between the lacrosse team’s culture and the alleged crime. Of course, by March 2007, Roberts was arguing exactly the opposite, once it became clear that no crime occurred.

Araton also observed that his “lacrosse gals” column was written on May 26, and “what we knew back then was based on what the defense had been feeding the media.” (Araton appears to have missed Mike Nifong’s 50-70 interviews in the initial week of the case—it seemed to me that the district attorney was “feeding” quite a bit of information to the media.) He continued, “If the outcome of every high-profile case was to be determined by the ability to afford the best defense attorney, would any person of means ever be convicted of a crime? Would any true victim be willing to stand up?”

Now we know why such powerful evidence was dismissed: if only Seligmann, Finnerty, and Evans had consented to be represented by public defenders, New York Times sports columnists would have paid attention to evidence of their innocence.

In any case, Araton remains critical of the “lacrosse gals.” “It was too soon in the case, he e-mailed me, “for anyone to be absolutely certain where it was heading, whether there was enough of a case to even pursue. That was my position in being critical of the women’s lacrosse players.”

It’s not clear when in the case it would have been appropriate for the women’s players to have spoken up. By the time of the Final Four, the public knew that Reade Seligmann was on a video someplace else at the time of the alleged attack; that Mike Nifong ordered the police to violate their own lineup procedures in order to get Crystal Mangum to pick three—any three—people to indict; that the second dancer told police the allegations were a “crock”; and that the DNA evidence that Nifong had promised would identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent had matched no lacrosse players. Indeed, the fact that the attorney general recently announced that there never was any credible evidence against the accused students suggests that the women's players were right in speaking up when they did.

“If I had a daughter,” Araton continued, “I would not have been thrilled to see her ‘stake her reputation’ on [the men’s players], given their behavioral track record.” Of course, one reason the women’s lacrosse players were willing to wear the armbands is that they knew the character of the three accused players. And given the outcome of this case, it would seem to me that parents of the women’s lacrosse players must be extraordinarily proud of their daughters. They stood up to protest against what is the highest-profile case of prosecutorial misconduct in modern American history, withstood attacks from papers like the New York Times, and were proved correct.

Anyhow, Araton complained, the case was “so typical of a behavioral double-standard in a country where young black basketball players are called thugs for wearing a tattoo or a doo-rag.” I asked him for instances in which a race-baiting district attorney falsely had claimed that three “young black basketball players” had committed a heinous crime while the media and their professors focused instead on the players’ behavior; he supplied none.

Araton concluded his response to the DIW reader by mocking “the fury of the Duke defenders in context to the three thousand young people dead in Iraq and the thousands more returned home with tragic injuries.”

Those with long memories might recall this isn’t the first time that Iraq has been cited in a bizarre fashion in this case. In early April, Mike Nifong tried to rationalize his procedurally improper pre-primary publicity barrage through the following statement: “Having said something other than 'no comment’ in the first place, it’s kind of like going into Iraq. It’s not a question of if you’re right to go in there. It’s a question of is it right to leave things a mess at this point in time?”

I fear the Iraq analogy will work no better for Araton than it did for Nifong.

60 comments:

There were a lot of dead and wounded soldiers in Iraq last year. Why then did this columnist find the need to write a column about such trivial matters as the Duke Womens' Lacrosse team then?

Shouldn't every column of his be about Iraq if it's so important as to trump Constitutional and legal malfeasance by an elected law enforcement official in North Carolina? Surely it trumps everything else, too.

"On March 13, 2006, some forty affluent white men solicited the presence of two black women on (former) plantation property for the explicit purposes of racially denigrating, disrespecting, and exploiting them....

"One of these women said that she was raped by three of these inebriated white men. People in power and those without disbelieved her. This is sickening....

"The ‘facts’ of the case should not matter to us because even if we are unsure of sexual assault, these supremacists have admitted to sexually, racially and politically denigrating these women. Strippers or not, this must be addressed....

"History has shown us that the (in)justice system cannot and will not address these issues because it is built upon them. So upon whose shoulders should the responsibility of retributive correction fall?

"White people still murder us with impunity. White people still beat us with impunity. White people still rape us and get away with it.

"The only deterrent to these legally, socially and economically validated supremacist actions is the fear of physical retribution.

"Black men, stand up. Black women, stand up. Black children, stand up. We have been at war here with these same white people for 500 years."

Just shaking my head. All I can do is continue to boycott he NYT and hope these scum are the first to go in the staff reduction. I think the OJ trial showed hiring the best lawyers is an equal opportunity venture. I am still surprised they got Skakel- who continues to appeal.Womens Lax are heriones and true models. Hard to believe anyone at Duke would be smart enough to acknowledge these women. You go girl.

These mean-spirited doofuses like Araton stumble all over themselves in their non-logical self-contradicting ways to get out of their former statements. I hope they all make it into K.C.'s book. They need to go down in history recognized for what they are.

I guess Araton's point is that since he's a commentator, he has the right to make comments with impunity. Since we are not commentators, our comments about his comments don't really matter. But it does seem ironic that he would write about the lacrosse "gals" negating common sense and staking their reputations, when their attitudes were perfectly sensible and therefore improved their reputations. Once again Duke students show themselves to be more intelligent than the adults. But based on the post above I can't say that goes for all area colleges...

what they really objected to are the following:--low IQ--academic parasire--affirmative action--quotas--my personal favorite to Lubiano: "perhaps you could resign your sinecure at Duke and become a diarrhea detective in sub-Saharan Africa. Think you'd be a success at that"

As a son of Africa, I know that American law is not worth the paper it is written upon.

This worldview is so distorted that it is really hard to take. I have trouble believing that this sort of thought is not all an act, but quite sadly, I am convinced that it is not.

This represents a very clear and serious problem, with no solution that is obvious to me. The thing is, this problem was not created by repression, lack of opportunity, lack of rights, lack of hand-outs, or anything else of this sort -- it is being created through distortions, by the likes of those who have been exposed through this "case".

With the breakdown of the family in some segments of society, this really does start to look like what happens in parts of the world where we see raw hatred and extreme violence. Take some orphans and fill their minds with hate from a young age, glorify acts of self-destruction and warfare, and set them loose...

Frankly, I am taken aback that this was published. It is basically an incitement to commit murder, when you take the title and follow the line of invective. To me, it is quite telling that this sort of thing circulates, largely unchallenged.

How can Araton not be held accountable for insulting a bright, hardworking group of young women athletes? These students (not gals) are role models for all of us to emulate. If he had insulted a largely African American group of athletes would the demand for an apology from him be louder?

Araton may not have spewed foul language but he performed a written assault on the integrity and ethical core of these brave female athletes.

Perhaps if Araton had absorbed the message the girls lacrosse team was sending he might have grasped much sooner the hoax being perpetrated against the men's duke lacrosse players. His blinders kept him from accepting the truth Instead he focused on the fraudulent depiction being promoted by the DA and Crystal.

And still, the guy can't apologize. He's a good reason to finally cancel my NYT subscription!

First, I'm seeing red over Araton's dragging in our troops to cover his ass. My nephew is a machinegunner with the 82nd Airborne in Ramadi, Iraq. Let me put that in perspective for the civilians here: My nephew has the most dangerous combat job in the most dangerous combat zone in the world. The life-expectancy of a machinegunner in combat is 90 seconds. My nephew was already wounded in Ramadi last August, but after being patched up in the U.S. returned to his unit in December. That a PUNK like Araton who has never heard a shot fired in anger can even utter a sentence ... Nevermind. Sorry for the digression.

Araton says it was "too soon" for the "gals" to stand by their friends. You know when I knew it was a hoax? I'm ashamed to say it was nearly 24 hours after I heard the first reports. Why did I know it was a hoax within 24 hours? Because the idea that a bunch of white men would rape a black woman is about as believeable as a bunch of Amish women robbing banks. The crime is almost unthinkable. Take the challenge: When was the last time there was a PROVEN gangrape of a black woman by white men?

According to FBI statistics there are at least 1,200 (and perhaps as many as 3,000) gangrapes by blacks of white women every year. That works out to about 3 to 8 a day. And this is just GANG rapes. But white-on-black gangrapes? Take the challenge.

The most dubious comment by Araton was his assertion that the "lacrosse gals" didn't have enough facts to entitle them to an educated opinion. Hmmm, let's see, but did Araton? Or the Group 88, who famously thanked the pot-bangers "for not waiting for the truth to get in the way?" (or something like that)

Does it never occur to those who hold such beliefs that there was this thing called the Civil War where the casualties far eclipsed anything we have seen in Iraq? Many people have made monumental sacrifices so that they have the freedoms, opportunities, and rights that they do. Where do they suppose it will end if they start killing those with whom they find fault, especially when they seem to get this so very wrong so often?

We have a system that provides for peaceful change and identity politics is one of the main reasons it doesn't work better than it does. Large blocks of voters are fooled into making bad choices by leaders who exploit their followers for personal gain, using shameful tactics and spreading a culture of extortion.

I know this sounds pretty extreme, but why is it that this mindset is so prevalent and goes unchallenged, while other things that are far less dangerous and wrong-headed get shouted down? Where is a critique from the G88? If someone were to be killed, as the author demands, would they have anything to say?

Fourth, while Duke University has good individuals, like most universities today, Duke is a moral wasteland.

Eight-eight professors, abetted by Duke's president, created a mob mentality against the young men not unlike that of a lynch mob. Of course, nothing will be done to Duke's president or to those professors.

To get fired as the president of an elite American university, one must suggest that men and women are innately different. Politically incorrect truth telling -- not race-, gender- or class-baiting of whites, athletes or males -- gets you fired. And Duke alumni will continue to fund Duke, just as Columbia University alumni are funding Columbia with record donations despite Columbia's reluctance to discipline radical students who violently disrupted a conservative speaker on campus last year.

America's news media, an amoral university, an opportunistic district attorney, and a police department that seems to have collaborated in framing innocent students all combined to nearly destroy the lives of three innocent young men -- members of the Duke University lacrosse team.

The attorney general of North Carolina announced that all charges -- of rape, sexual assault and whatever other charges a mendacious young woman got Mike Nifong to bring against the Duke lacrosse team players -- were being dropped. He pronounced the students "innocent," not merely "not guilty." And the attorney general also declared Nifong a "rogue prosecutor."

Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong smiles during a North Carolina State Bar hearing in Raleigh, N.C., Friday, April 13, 2007. A disciplinary committee rejected a request Friday to dismiss ethics charges against the former prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case that accuse him of withholding critical DNA evidence from the defense. (AP Photo/Gerry Broome) The lessons of this terrible story are obvious, but given the political correctness of our time and the inverted values that prevail among America's elites -- particularly the news media, the universities and the legal profession -- these lessons will rarely be expressed, let alone learned.

First, the rape of a name is also a rape. A false accusation of rape can be as devastating to a man and his family as a real rape can be to a woman and her family. Sometimes a real rape is more destructive; sometimes the rape of a name is more destructive. It is therefore a grave injustice not to prosecute the woman who brought these false charges.

Second, moral Americans of every race must acknowledge that our society has a problem of anti-white prejudice in parts of the African American community. Proportionally, it seems that more blacks unfairly mistrust whites than whites unfairly mistrust blacks. Mike Nifong won his race for district attorney largely by appealing to this prejudice.

Third, it is utterly unjust that the families of the Duke lacrosse players had to pay millions of dollars in attorneys fees to defend their sons against a lying woman and a morally corrupt district attorney. Such injustices happen every day because the American legal system, unlike that of other countries such as Great Britain, forces those who win lawsuits wrongly brought against them to pay all their legal bills. Trial lawyers and the Democratic Party, which trial lawyers fund, prevent all reform in this area in order to allow frivolous lawsuits and their accompanying high lawyer profits to continue. That is why three young men who did nothing wrong have cost their families much, if not all, of their life savings.

Fourth, while Duke University has good individuals, like most universities today, Duke is a moral wasteland. Eight-eight professors, abetted by Duke's president, created a mob mentality against the young men not unlike that of a lynch mob. Of course, nothing will be done to Duke's president or to those professors. To get fired as the president of an elite American university, one must suggest that men and women are innately different. Politically incorrect truth telling -- not race-, gender- or class-baiting of whites, athletes or males -- gets you fired. And Duke alumni will continue to fund Duke, just as Columbia University alumni are funding Columbia with record donations despite Columbia's reluctance to discipline radical students who violently disrupted a conservative speaker on campus last year.

Fifth, the moral vision of much of the Left, which led the anti-white athlete hysteria, was revealed again. It views the world not as a conflict between good and evil but between white and black, male and female, and rich and poor. The athletes were rich and white and male. For many on the Left, that alone made them villains. As a general proposition, subject to exceptions that accompany all generalizations, the Left has considerably more compassion for groups (racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and sexual groups it favors) than for individuals.

Sixth, any time Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson get in front of cameras on a race matter, assume that they are there to inflame, not heal. We await their apologies to the three Duke students. But we are also awaiting Al Sharpton's apologies to those he libeled in the Tawana Brawley rape hoax.

Seventh, the next time you hear that someone was indicted by a grand jury, unless you have knowledge of the case, or reason suggests possible guilt, don't assume it. As Joe Cheshire, one of the accused boys' lawyers said, "A grand jury would indict a ham sandwich for the death of a pig."

Eighth, it is time to drop the anti-male bigotry and either hide the names of accused rapists -- at least until their indictment -- or also reveal the names of their accusers. Short of that, the press and justice system surely have the moral obligation to reveal the names of false accusers of rape. It is almost beyond belief (but little is anymore) that news media like The New York Times will still not reveal the name of the lying accuser. For the record, it is Crystal Mangum. Shame on her and her supporters.

If that NCCU writer feels he is unfairly living in the land of white man's laws, will he be leaving the U.S. soon to be moving to a black-run country in Africa or the Carribean? I assume he will, since then all will be fine for him, right? My statement might sound uncomfortably close to the traditional KKK type "send them all back to Africa" attitude, but, when one feels like that writer does, it would make sense to move, correct? And if he doesn't leave, I ask : why not?

The consequences of CrystalGayle Mangum's false rape accusations are already mademanifest: a convicted childrapist was acquitted in SouthCarolina (Kenneth Glenn Hinson)when the young women who accusedhim were found less-than-crediblewitnesses, even though he hadwhat can only be called anunderground bunker.

True rape victims are sufferingbecause of Crystal Gayle Mangum:the day has already arrived.If there is any reason to prosecute Mangum and Nifong,this is it.

Araton seems to be saying that because he is a NY Times columnist, he speaks ex cathera. Last year, he told me that he was willing to accept a different outcome than guilty. (That really was mighty big of him, in retrospect.)

In other words, some 20-year-olds drinking beer and getting caught peeing in the bushes (as though no man ever has done that before) is of equal moral status as representatives of the State of North Carolina pursuing false charges, lying, and withholding evidence. This speaks volumes for the culture that dominates the New York Times.

Just to let you know the NCCU person that wrote that column has a criminal record and has spent 1 year in jail. He punched his mother in the face and assaulted 2 Duke students among other things (several years prior to the Hoax). He's a total wackjob-can you say Virginia Tech - again.

Why did I know it was a hoax within 24 hours? Because the idea that a bunch of white men would rape a black woman is about as believeable as a bunch of Amish women robbing banks.

The poster is correct, but doesn't go quite far enough. Here's how I knew it was a hoax:

Because the idea that a bunch of young white college educated men who had no exposure to the seamy side of life would rape (without condoms, yet) ANY stripper (who could also be a prostitute and carrying various STDs and / or HIV/AIDS) is about as believeable as a bunch of Amish women robbing banks.

As for Araton? Consider the paper he writes for. Their idea of a sports story is to force Augusta National (a private club) to admit women. We're all lucky Araton doesn't have a daughter (hopefully, no sons either) if the life lesson he would teach is to follow a PC narrative rather than stand and defend someone you believe in because you know their character.

Not only has the author of the NCCU piece spent thirteen months in jail, he states the following in the Herald sun:

"Anyone who wishes to contrast my temperament now as opposed to my temperament then is glad to do so," Solomon Burnette said. "I am gladly redeemed, thank you. I am living proof that one can come from the most criminalized of mind states and achieve academic and intellectual success."

Araton manages to add his name to an ever-lengthening list who have publically proclaimed, "There is no objective truth; there is only individual/personal truth and the truth of ME is that I wanted these guys to be guilty so badly I have a fresh hernia from straining over the matter." And fresh hernias really hurt. So he is thinking, "I am already in a lot of pain - my truth is that this hurts afterall - and now you expect me to take on more pain by apologizing for being wrong about a question of objective truth that I do not recognize anyway?? Go fu.. cough, cough - ouch!!! ouch!!! somebody call a doctor."

Having been proven dead wrong about the Duke "gals," he leaps to another issue that he thinks will restore his moral upper hand.

Like the Westport Wonder, he makes the suggestion that Duke3 defenders are racist, with a bizarre shot in passing about do-rags, tatoos, and a "double standard." I'd like to see him try to explain what he means on that one.

As far as Iraq, I dont suppose the Times will suspend coverage about anything other than Iraq anytime soon.

He's just wimping out, changing the subject, and clouding an issue he was so wrong about.

He, like the rest of the Times, is just not a stand up guy.

The "gals" are capable of "staking their own reputations" but Aranton isn't.

When you do stake your reputation, you have to be prepared to apologize if you are wrong. But you have to have integrity and guts to stake your reputation. Aranton and the Times have niether.

If the AG is right about the mind of CGM, then to push forward with any prosecution would not be in the best interest of justice. I do however believe that if she is really that sick, she should be locked away as a threat to herself AND OTHERS. As for Burnette, his forget the evidence line is typical militant stuff.

Liberalism really has become a religion. What better proof than this horrible episode? Public genuflection before the race/class/sex religion is now a job prerequisite. This is true, not only in academia, but in the arts. Fealty to doofus Marxism is expected and demanded in these fields.

The need to create martyrs drove this farce. The same process is at work as the left struggles to deify homosexuals as sainted martyrs. Crime statistics do not support the notion of a wave of hate crimes against gays. Solution. Heavy handed propaganda films, like "Brokeback Mountain" that portray gays as sainted martyrs struggling against violent and bigoted straight men.

The process is always the same. Build the mythology of martyrdom so that only a mean spirited, hard hearted bastard could possibly oppose the left's aims. The mythology of the sainted black martyr was built on Hollywood films that literally and relentlessly defamed southern white men as violent racists. The civil rights movement didn't seem able to just argue that blacks were good and bad, and that they still should be afforded their rights. No, the civil rights movement argued that blacks were morally superior to whites. We are living now with the consequences of all the phony dramatization and fake martyrdom.

"White people still murder us with impunity. White people still beat us with impunity. White people still rape us and get away with it."

Hey, never let any actual facts get in the way of a good racist argument, fella. The facts show that white on black crime is relatively rare, especially compared to the near-epidemic proportions of black on black crime, and white on black rape is nearly unheard of (except for a few well-publicized hoaxes). Crystal Mangum was not raped by white men -- as an abundance of physical and DNA evidence proved beyond doubt. Mangum was just a drug-addled hooker who made up a racist lie about rape to get out of the drunk tank, and possibly score some more drugs in the ER. Tawana Brawley was a teenager who lied about rape so that she could avoid another beating from her black mother for missing her curfew. The Brawley grand jury documented Brawley's mother's habit of punching her daughter in the face when the daughter misbehaved. I suppose this is whitey's fault too, right?

"On March 13, 2006, some forty affluent white men solicited the presence of two black women on (former) plantation property for the explicit purposes of racially denigrating, disrespecting, and exploiting them. . ."

Oops, another factual error spoils your favorite meta-narrative. The lacrosse players solicited two white women, not blacks, for their strip show. When blacks showed up, the players paid them anyway (though they were disappointed), undoubtedly out of a sense of political correctness. Oh, the irony.

"The ‘facts’ of the case should not matter to us . . . ."

Yes, you've made that abundantly clear. Facts never matter to people like you. Facts don't support your twisted world view. Facts get in the way of all your rationalizations for your pathetic, self-pitying existence.

"Black men, stand up. Black women, stand up. Black children, stand up. We have been at war here with these same white people for 500 years."

Take a look at the recent depraved murders in Knoxville, TN, of two white students from the Univ. of Tennessee. This young man and woman were raped, beaten, tortured, mutilated, and murdered by a gang of blacks -- undoubtedly people who share your view of themselves as whitey's perpetual victims. Happy now? Looks like you are a "success" after all. I'm sure your mama (you remember her, the one you punched) would be so proud.

KC: I truly hope you and Stuart will absolutely smoke out idiots like Araton in your book. Morons like Araton deserve to be called out and exposed for the shrill, agenda-driven, biased, venal vermin that they are. To be sure, this might only draw attention to Araton that, paradoxically, he might perversely enjoy. That said, given the likely widespread readership that your book will attract, it's probably a risk worth taking. Araton's own words reveal a shockingly small and closed mind.

I followed the link to the Feinstein article. I have generally liked the stuff he has written. After reading the article, I have to ask: Where is he getting his facts? At this point, it is pretty clear that the racist comments at the party were made in response to racist comments by Kim Roberts Pittman. That doesn't excuse the comments, but it does put them in some perspective. Moreover, noone has pointed to any discplinary problems on the part of Reade Seligmann at Duke. And, for all of the talk about the dust-up in DC that Collin Finnerty was involved in, the judge made it clear by his ruling that he didn't think he was getting the whole story, even from the "victim." Finally, the team captains have apologized for their lack of judgment. I am mystified as to Feinstein's continued attack on the three defendants.

I followed the link to the Feinstein article. I have generally liked the stuff he has written. After reading the article, I have to ask: Where is he getting his facts? At this point, it is pretty clear that the racist comments at the party were made in response to racist comments by Kim Roberts Pittman. That doesn't excuse the comments, but it does put them in some perspective. Moreover, noone has pointed to any discplinary problems on the part of Reade Seligmann at Duke. And, for all of the talk about the dust-up in DC that Collin Finnerty was involved in, the judge made it clear by his ruling that he didn't think he was getting the whole story, even from the "victim." Finally, the team captains have apologized for their lack of judgment. I am mystified as to Feinstein's continued attack on the three defendants.

Had Araton made these remarks today about the female Lax team, I would hope that the uproar would get him fired. The problem - whites shrug this stuff off. This is as bad as Imus and the basketball team.

It's interesting that Araton would point to Feinstein's piece in his defense, because--despite some dissing of the lax team and some factual errors (those noted by an earlier poster, plus Feinstein's idea that the notorious McFadyen e-mail was sent out "in the wake of the arrests," as if it were intended to threaten the accuser--when in fact, the e-mail was sent the night of the party, before its author or anyone else had the slightest idea that a rape accusation would be made)--the piece states that, by the time the women's lacrosse team was wearing armbands, everyone at the university should have known that the charges were bogus and the men's lacrosse team should have been allowed to play.

Under the circumstances, the women's demonstration of support--which clearly focused on the rape charges, rather than on any claim that the men's lacrosse players were "heroes" or "choir boys," is presumably something that Feinstein would approve of, rather than criticize.

To me, the most offensive part of Araton's piece (and other articles criticizing the women's team) was the infantilizing of the women--the idea that, because they disagreed with Araton, they must be childish and stupid. I disagreed with Araton then, as I do now, and I am neither childish nor stupid (though I can get a bit ornery at times).

Just returned from a 10 day hiatus from DIW and most of the news from MSM. Some things have changed, but most haven't. Here's what I see:

My early amusement with the Don Imus comments coming back to bite him has turned to anger and disgust. This is a story where in my mind the punishment in no way fits the crime - not by a long shot (are you with me, OJ?).

I am also sickened by the fact that "Tawana" Sharpton and "Heimie Town" Jackson, those self-deputized members of Rosie "The Spew" O'Donnell's "thought police", have managed to take away my right to accept the numerous Imus apologies and listen to his show if and when I choose. My only hope is that good trumps evil in this newest train wreck, and that Imus returns to the airways, a little bent, but not broken.

I see that the latest purveyor of NYT of "all the spews thats fit to print" is one Harvey Araton. This latest gutless wonder should take an invaluable lesson in character judgemet from the Duke lacrosse "gals", but so far that prospect is about as likely as a snowstorm in Nicaragua. Fair enough - let Mr. Aragon consider a name "makeover" more emblematic of his chararcter. Consider: "Arat", or "Aratondrugs"

Lastly, I find Sheryl Crow on a new toilet paper rationing mission that has Rosie O'Donnell screaming something like "has Sheryl Crow seen my ass?" I suggest Arat take one for the team and cover that one for us. He seems to have a nose for that kind of thing.

The real beauty of all of this Araton nonsense is that remarks like his no longer go unnoticed or unchallenged because of the internet and bloggers like KC who seek out the truth.

The other beauty is our freedom of speech. Remarks like Araton's should remind all of us why even the most offensive speech should be protected. If it's not, then we invite the thought police to tell us what we can and can not say. We need to relearn how to fight words with words, not with word bans.

Only in Wonderland, would the politically correct expect us to believe that banning offensive words shows sensitivity, yet banning abortion does not.

To 9:05, who said "...The civil rights movement didn't seem able to just argue that blacks were good and bad, and that they still should be afforded their rights. No, the civil rights movement argued that blacks were morally superior to whites".

That is simply not true.

And to Debrah (the real brain who knows everthing):Sheryl Crowe's comment was a "joke". How can you not know that?! You get grosser with each passing day!

KC, I'm still concerned that you're taking a "he who was not with us in April 2006 will always be against us" attitude.

I'm not defending Araton here. But I will defend Feinstein, whose piece includes the following:

- He laments: "Mike Pressler, the coach, who according to Duke's own report was the one adult on campus who took some action after the (2004) report, was fired."

- "Once all 46 players had been DNA-tested and no DNA from any of them showed up on the accuser's body, Brodhead should have allowed the season to continue." (If he's contradicting something he wrote a year ago, I'll agree he should say so.)

- "Surely Duke -- which is so flush it has more money than it knows what to do with -- should pay every penny of their legal expenses." (The only question I have on those lines is whether such a move would affect any remaining NCAA lacrosse eligibility.)

I want to think that you're going to write the accurate record that this sordid affair so desperately deserves. I think you have good intentions. But I'm worried that you're writing it, perhaps subconsciously, for the anti-Dukies and political slogan-shouters who've gathered around your blog.

There are thousands of us who always doubted Nifong and are irritated, in varying degrees and specifics, with Duke's response. We're just not going to go along with the dogma here. Example: We're not buying the "American Psycho" excuse on the McFadyen e-mail, but we accept his apology and are happy to see him on the team again.

Bottom line: Those of us who were "right" last year should really get over ourselves.

I'd love to see you publicly address this concern. It might increase the size of the choir to which you're preaching.

To 1:30, who said "...the rape of a name is also a rape. A false accusation of rape can be as devastating to a man and his family as a real rape can be to a woman and her family. Sometimes a real rape is more destructive; sometimes the rape of a name is more destructive. It is therefore a grave injustice not to prosecute the woman who brought these false charges".

Okay, that being said, what should the penalty be for a man who RAPES a woman? I'm not referring to casual "hook up and binge drinking" stuff. I'm talking about "real" rape. Do you think a "rapist" should be castrated?

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review